Agri

Marvin Horne v. Agri

Good Law
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 25, 201110-15270California7,299 words

Opinion

Opinion

BACKGROUND

I. Regulatory Framework

Raisins and other agricultural commodities are heavily reg- ulated under federal marketing orders adopted pursuant to the AMAA, a Depression-era statute enacted in response to plum- meting commodity prices, market disequilibrium, and the accompanying threat to the nation’s credit system. 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.; see Zuber v. Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 174-76 (1969); see generally Daniel Bensing, “The Promulgation and Implementation of Federal Marketing Orders Regulating Fruit and Vegetable Crops Under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937,” 5 San Joaquin Agric. L. Rev. 3 (1995). The declared purposes of the AMAA are, inter alia, 1 Collectively referred to as “the Hornes,” the Plaintiffs-Appellants are Marvin and Laura Horne, d/b/a Raisin Valley Farms (a California general partnership), and d/b/a Raisin Valley Farms Marketing Association (a Cal- ifornia unincorporated association), together with their business partners Don Durbahn and the Estate of Rena Durbahn, collectively d/b/a Lassen Vineyards (a California general partnership). HORNE v. USDA 9459 to help farmers achieve and maintain price parity for their…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.